Word. When I try to play a game like Oblivion, it's like one of those conversations: "...so, what should we do?" "I don't know, what do you want to do?" "I was hoping you would have something in mind..."
That seems pretty easy. Apple sees the iPad as the future of computing. The existing iTunes store isn't very well suited to that model. It's very desktop-centric where all your music is managed on a traditional computer. Apple sees people using iPads as main computing devices, not syncing with a "real computer" at all.
They can't just port iTunes as we know it to the iPad because the desktop model doesn't work well on the touch-oriented device. The eventual vision for iPad music/media is cloud-based. Apple management may be coming around to understanding that they are bad at building cloud services in-house.
Nokia's smartphone strategy isn't in a good place. Unpopular platform, low sales.
If you believe that plain-old-phones have a strong future then Nokia could be considered relevant, but I personally don't see it. It's a mistake to assume that other markets will evolve in the same way that the rich-country markets did, going through a period with massive sales of very simple devices. Rather, I expect that poorer countries will move toward more capable devices very quickly. The effective elimination of the simple-phone market will be a very big strain on Nokia.
Sure, they make quality servers, etc, whatever. The point is that these are just product categories defined by someone else. Microsoft pretty heavily determines what your laptop is going to be like because they control the software. The chip manufacturers determine your performance/power options. Etc.
That's the cost of an industry-wide dominating platform -- tends to make all the end-user products the same. HP has done well competing against Dell/Acer/etc on implementing the platform, but that isn't very interesting and it leaves a company completely vulnerable to what others do. The industry is going through major changes right now and it is a bad time for a big company to sit around and follow trends set by others.
The best thing that can be said about this is that it's a really bad investment to pay a billion dollars for Palm. HP is showing a lot of guts in refusing to accept the presumptive Apple vs Google conflict as the definition of the mobile computing war. Generally I would say that HP doesn't have the corporate culture to be anything other than a big irrelevant company like Dell, but if they keep taking big risks and standing behind them that could change. Most likely they will fail, but it would certainly make the next decade more interesting.
You call someone an idiot because they pointed out that Apple's leaks have not previously included hardware, and you link to an example about leaking information, where no hardware was leaked?
Based on the rampant stupidity flowing around this thread, prepare to be modded up!
Sigh. No, it is not reasonable to extrapolate the concept of "monopoly" to the point where an individual manufacturer in a competitive market is accused of a "monopoly" over their own products.
Depends on the rule set you use. Simplified rule sets used for mathematical analysis of the game usually do not require life/death analysis to determine the final score at the end. Rules used by human players in practice are much harder to score algorithmically, largely for historical reasons.
I don't think you can go so far as to call it a "plain fact" that the PRC is a "criminal dictatorship" (in the mold of the DPRK for example). That is an opinion and a fairly incendiary one, ultimately not necessary to your point.
And, really, it's not necessary. You're saying that a private corporation's executives should use personal ethical and moral judgements in the process of determining how to respond to various government requests. Which is fine by me (before some idiot comes in quoting that stupid movie and erroneously claiming that such judgements are illegal). Along with that, I'm sure you'd accept that various executives would have differing opinions with respect to China, Russia, Cuba, etc.
Obviously as a practical matter, fundamental conflict with a country's established government would generally preclude commercial operation in that country.
Re:The end of homebrew
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
Isn't this in large part what maturation looks like? Back in the day (and I do remember) something like the C64 was more like an unadorned steel frame than a building (work with me on the metaphor here). You could hang all sorts of stuff from your steel frame (even early network services like CompuServe) but it wasn't exactly a great place to live.
Over time it's become clear that most people want certain specific things out of their buildings, and it's not a huge surprise that we have a big market of people selling finished homes; the question of how you can get to the frame inside isn't as relevant as that of why you would want to. There's also a big market of people/companies who need or want an unadorned steel frame, and they are running Linux or similar, making all this "cloud" stuff actually happen.
New metaphor; computing has evolved in both directions, toward more and less complexity. These should been seen as complementary forces, not forces in tension. Heck, even life on Earth has evolved this way -- the advent of complex multicellular life with heavily guarded and structured genetics in no way heralded the end of simple bacteria that could trade genes all over the place.
I'm not sure your comment is really that insightful. It looks like more the knee-jerk common-sense sort of thing... I'd expect better on Slashdot.
What doesn't follow is your final conclusion: that the overall level of "dangerousness" is the about the same. The problem is that drivers are well-equipped to evaluate the increased danger from parked cars/nearby buildings/etc but not well-equipped to understand the vast increase in risks involved with, say, accelerating from 20 to 30 mph. We're evolved to move much more slowly than that, where increased risk as a function of speed is much flatter.
It's kind of a paradox, but not really a difficult one to understand.
Personally, I think it's bullshit advice to assume that poor countries trying to industrialize now will be successful if they follow the same technological path as the countries that industrialized during the Industrial Revolution.
Just as an example, you wouldn't suggest that a poor country should develop a copper voice telecom industry like rich countries did, would you? It's much more effective to build a wireless voice network, since the tech available is so much cheaper now.
But in modern industrialized societies, hypothetically turning off the entire Internet would have secondary effects on those who don't use it in their daily lives or work. Not that people would die in large numbers or anything.
I imagine someone pointed out that a million bucks a year of bandwidth costs could be saved by using a shorter domain name. What a non-story.
And what's this about Google being "misspelled"? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. "Google" is a great brand name loosely based on a word that would have been a terrible brand name.
No, it would be naive to think that Toyota knows anything. Most likely clueless management has been presented with some PowerPoint presentation with slides like the infamous Columbia one: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB and drew the conclusions that they wanted to draw.
I'm sure someone in the engineering department has known the truth for years, but they likely lost the political battle to bring the message to management clearly.
I don't know, this one might strike people as weird, but I'm not so sure.
If you had the idea to start up a $1 movie theater for profit, it sure would be nice if you could buy a $30 blu-ray version of a recent movie and show it to hundreds of people, but I don't see it as some huge injustice that this isn't legal. There really is a difference between watching something in your home, with friends, etc and a for-profit public performance. (And you can bet that the lawyers would be all over a theater that tried to pull something like that).
No surprise that the NFL would expect the same laws to apply. It would be nice for Congress to pass an exemption for churches and such, though you might risk having people join the Church of the Celluloid and taking unfair advantage.
Yeah, I see a lot of people going on with the "can't replace my laptop because" sort of theme, and I'm surprised that it's so unclear to people what this is for. The iPad is a coffee table computer, mostly something that will sit in a living room/conference room for when someone wants to check their email or the news or whatever for a couple minutes.
A couple unreliable fission nukes from Iran or Pakistan doesn't threaten "nuclear annihilation". That threat is in the large arsenals held by major powers. Reducing the size of those arsenals reduces the threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Word. When I try to play a game like Oblivion, it's like one of those conversations: "...so, what should we do?" "I don't know, what do you want to do?" "I was hoping you would have something in mind..."
That seems pretty easy. Apple sees the iPad as the future of computing. The existing iTunes store isn't very well suited to that model. It's very desktop-centric where all your music is managed on a traditional computer. Apple sees people using iPads as main computing devices, not syncing with a "real computer" at all.
They can't just port iTunes as we know it to the iPad because the desktop model doesn't work well on the touch-oriented device. The eventual vision for iPad music/media is cloud-based. Apple management may be coming around to understanding that they are bad at building cloud services in-house.
Nokia's smartphone strategy isn't in a good place. Unpopular platform, low sales.
If you believe that plain-old-phones have a strong future then Nokia could be considered relevant, but I personally don't see it. It's a mistake to assume that other markets will evolve in the same way that the rich-country markets did, going through a period with massive sales of very simple devices. Rather, I expect that poorer countries will move toward more capable devices very quickly. The effective elimination of the simple-phone market will be a very big strain on Nokia.
Sure, they make quality servers, etc, whatever. The point is that these are just product categories defined by someone else. Microsoft pretty heavily determines what your laptop is going to be like because they control the software. The chip manufacturers determine your performance/power options. Etc.
That's the cost of an industry-wide dominating platform -- tends to make all the end-user products the same. HP has done well competing against Dell/Acer/etc on implementing the platform, but that isn't very interesting and it leaves a company completely vulnerable to what others do. The industry is going through major changes right now and it is a bad time for a big company to sit around and follow trends set by others.
The best thing that can be said about this is that it's a really bad investment to pay a billion dollars for Palm. HP is showing a lot of guts in refusing to accept the presumptive Apple vs Google conflict as the definition of the mobile computing war. Generally I would say that HP doesn't have the corporate culture to be anything other than a big irrelevant company like Dell, but if they keep taking big risks and standing behind them that could change. Most likely they will fail, but it would certainly make the next decade more interesting.
Well, with McAfee, the cure has been worse than the disease for over a decade now. But the cure is easier to explain to management.
I think people are arguing over whether this was an actual written policy, or just a policy he made up. (I don't claim to know).
You call someone an idiot because they pointed out that Apple's leaks have not previously included hardware, and you link to an example about leaking information, where no hardware was leaked?
Based on the rampant stupidity flowing around this thread, prepare to be modded up!
Sigh. No, it is not reasonable to extrapolate the concept of "monopoly" to the point where an individual manufacturer in a competitive market is accused of a "monopoly" over their own products.
Depends on the rule set you use. Simplified rule sets used for mathematical analysis of the game usually do not require life/death analysis to determine the final score at the end. Rules used by human players in practice are much harder to score algorithmically, largely for historical reasons.
I don't think you can go so far as to call it a "plain fact" that the PRC is a "criminal dictatorship" (in the mold of the DPRK for example). That is an opinion and a fairly incendiary one, ultimately not necessary to your point.
And, really, it's not necessary. You're saying that a private corporation's executives should use personal ethical and moral judgements in the process of determining how to respond to various government requests. Which is fine by me (before some idiot comes in quoting that stupid movie and erroneously claiming that such judgements are illegal). Along with that, I'm sure you'd accept that various executives would have differing opinions with respect to China, Russia, Cuba, etc.
Obviously as a practical matter, fundamental conflict with a country's established government would generally preclude commercial operation in that country.
Isn't this in large part what maturation looks like? Back in the day (and I do remember) something like the C64 was more like an unadorned steel frame than a building (work with me on the metaphor here). You could hang all sorts of stuff from your steel frame (even early network services like CompuServe) but it wasn't exactly a great place to live.
Over time it's become clear that most people want certain specific things out of their buildings, and it's not a huge surprise that we have a big market of people selling finished homes; the question of how you can get to the frame inside isn't as relevant as that of why you would want to. There's also a big market of people/companies who need or want an unadorned steel frame, and they are running Linux or similar, making all this "cloud" stuff actually happen.
New metaphor; computing has evolved in both directions, toward more and less complexity. These should been seen as complementary forces, not forces in tension. Heck, even life on Earth has evolved this way -- the advent of complex multicellular life with heavily guarded and structured genetics in no way heralded the end of simple bacteria that could trade genes all over the place.
I'm not sure your comment is really that insightful. It looks like more the knee-jerk common-sense sort of thing... I'd expect better on Slashdot.
What doesn't follow is your final conclusion: that the overall level of "dangerousness" is the about the same. The problem is that drivers are well-equipped to evaluate the increased danger from parked cars/nearby buildings/etc but not well-equipped to understand the vast increase in risks involved with, say, accelerating from 20 to 30 mph. We're evolved to move much more slowly than that, where increased risk as a function of speed is much flatter.
It's kind of a paradox, but not really a difficult one to understand.
Personally, I think it's bullshit advice to assume that poor countries trying to industrialize now will be successful if they follow the same technological path as the countries that industrialized during the Industrial Revolution.
Just as an example, you wouldn't suggest that a poor country should develop a copper voice telecom industry like rich countries did, would you? It's much more effective to build a wireless voice network, since the tech available is so much cheaper now.
But in modern industrialized societies, hypothetically turning off the entire Internet would have secondary effects on those who don't use it in their daily lives or work. Not that people would die in large numbers or anything.
As I'm sure you're aware, the patent's title doesn't really tell us what it covers.
So what you're saying is, it won't happen to MY satellite, but I'll probably hear about it happening to somebody else's satellite.
That doesn't really sound like a big problem...
Ah, that article explains a lot. It's nice to know that the problem stems from a horribly bad design, rather than a bad implementation.
I imagine someone pointed out that a million bucks a year of bandwidth costs could be saved by using a shorter domain name. What a non-story.
And what's this about Google being "misspelled"? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. "Google" is a great brand name loosely based on a word that would have been a terrible brand name.
No, it would be naive to think that Toyota knows anything. Most likely clueless management has been presented with some PowerPoint presentation with slides like the infamous Columbia one: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB and drew the conclusions that they wanted to draw.
I'm sure someone in the engineering department has known the truth for years, but they likely lost the political battle to bring the message to management clearly.
I don't know, this one might strike people as weird, but I'm not so sure.
If you had the idea to start up a $1 movie theater for profit, it sure would be nice if you could buy a $30 blu-ray version of a recent movie and show it to hundreds of people, but I don't see it as some huge injustice that this isn't legal. There really is a difference between watching something in your home, with friends, etc and a for-profit public performance. (And you can bet that the lawyers would be all over a theater that tried to pull something like that).
No surprise that the NFL would expect the same laws to apply. It would be nice for Congress to pass an exemption for churches and such, though you might risk having people join the Church of the Celluloid and taking unfair advantage.
Yeah, I see a lot of people going on with the "can't replace my laptop because" sort of theme, and I'm surprised that it's so unclear to people what this is for. The iPad is a coffee table computer, mostly something that will sit in a living room/conference room for when someone wants to check their email or the news or whatever for a couple minutes.
A couple unreliable fission nukes from Iran or Pakistan doesn't threaten "nuclear annihilation". That threat is in the large arsenals held by major powers. Reducing the size of those arsenals reduces the threat.
Speak for yourself.
Whether it's possible doesn't have much to do with whether it's allowed by the license agreement.